Second District, Seven 7 So Holds Under Civil Code Section 1354(c), But Splinters Badly in the Process. We all know that fundamental access to the courts is more than just rhetoric; it is a bulwark of our whole legal system. This principle took “front and center” importance in the next case, where entitlement to
Second District, Division 7 HOA Decision Is Now on the Books! On April 7, 2009, we reported on the HOA decision of Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association, Inc., Case No. B206686 (2d Dist., Div. 7). At the time, it was unpublished. However, on May 6, 2009, the Court of Appeal certified it for publication.
Second District, Division 7 Issues Two Unpublished Opinions on SLAPP. In our category “SLAPP,” we have explored cases where defendants have been victorious in winning mandatory attorney’s fees awards after prevailing in anti-SLAPP motions. The statutory basis for such fee entitlement is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Division 7 of the Second District
Third District Gives Mixed Blessing to Fee Victor. What happens when a fee award is not sustainable on one ground but correct on another? Answer: a remand, with directions to recalculate the award under the proper fee entitlement statute. The next case—Klamath River Development Co. v. Preston, Case Nos. C054002 & C055369 (3d
Second District, Division 7 Affirms Award Under Civil Code Section 1354 Despite Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing. Here is one with a twist: plaintiffs (who are the daughter and son-in-law of actual property owners) unsuccessfully sued a homeowners association (HOA) for, among other things, enforcement of the CC&Rs. The trial court ultimately concluded that plaintiffs
Recent Los Angeles Time Article Explores the Subject. Does a homeowner in a common interest residential subdivision project have the right to review attorney invoices for services rendered to a homeowners association? You betcha. Smith v. Laguna Sur Village Community Assn., 79 Cal.App.4th 641 (2000) so held. For a nice, short article
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Does Require Better Fee Allocation through a Separate Motion. One of the nice things about blogging is that we do get interactive input from a variety of individuals. Bill Leys, The Deck Expert, who has a blog at Waterproofdeckcoatingadvice.com, liked one of our recent HOA blogs and, in turn,
Fourth District, Division 1 Expresses Displeasure That Inexpensive Forum Was Not Pursued. In our category “Cases: Homeowner Associations,” we have discussed cases where HOAs or homeowners prevailed (or neither side prevailed) in disputes involving proper interpretation of CC&Rs—usually involving maintenance, repair, or view protection disputes. Attorney’s fees are usually the ultimate battle, because they
Ruling Affirmed Where Homeowner Spent Fees of At Least $35,088.50 and HOA Spent At Least $92,335.25. In our category “Cases: Homeowner Associations,” we have examined numerous contests between homeowners and homeowner associations (HOA) in common interest developments where attorney’s fees are often the real battle because most CC&Rs and Civil Code section 1354 allow
Fees Properly Declined To Victorious Defendant Where One Suing Plaintiff Was Not A Legal Entity And The Other Plaintiff Was Not Sued Individually–First District, Division 5 Affirms Refusal To Award Fees in a Unique Case. In our category “Cases: Homeowner Associations,” we previously have canvassed decisions awarding attorney’s fees to either HOAs or homeowners
